#prop67

I would not presume to publish something and call it a voter guide. There are lots of organizations where multiple individuals have collaborated on putting together multiple perspectives to create such things. I’m just one person, and I would caution anyone to be swayed by the ideas of just one person. Still, voting is confusing in California this year. Most voters, in the Bay Area, at least, have over 20 different items to be aware of, because of all the propositions and initiatives on the ballot. My ballot is four pages long. As a person who leans strongly towards anarchist philosophy and maintains a concern and interest with urban policy, maybe my views come from an unusual enough place that my thoughts on what we have to vote on this year can be interesting or useful to people. Some friends have shown curiosity in knowing what’s rolling around in my head.  Well, if that’s the case, just short of 24 hours before you might need it most, here is where I stand on our election items!

I’m coming up on a decade of love for The Town. I am sometimes afraid that Oakland is no longer the city I fell in love with, but I’m still here, and I’ll do what I can to make a voice for myself while I am.

Measure HH: Grocery Tax, or Soda Tax?

The two campaigns on Measure HH have been almost as obnoxious as the Presidential campaigns have been. I don’t even have TV, so I’m not even considering how obnoxious commercials must have been. Just the mailers, phone calls, texts, and web ads have been plenty. A month ago, I was really very confused about this whole thing and thought that the “grocery tax” and “soda tax” were two separate issues. Maybe you did, too. Welp, you’re wrong. Both of these phrases, indeed, refer to the same fucking thing. Isn’t that annoying?

Measure HH is actually best described as a soda tax. The opponents to this measure are calling it a “grocery tax” so that they can run a (reeeeaaally yuge) campaign against it, trying to scare people into thinking that their groceries are going to get more expensive and local grocers will go out of business because of the measure. It’s crap. They have no evidence to believe that. There is evidence, though, to think that this tax of a penny per ounce on sweetened beverages will work well enough to provide a greater good. The city of Berkeley has already passed such a tax, and an examination of its effects reveals that no one’s groceries are more expensive for it. This article in Forbes summarizes the findings of a study on this in Berkeley and reveals that consumption of sugary beverages has decreased by 21% in low-income neighborhoods (where public health officials are most concerned about the impacts of sugar on health, and the onset of diabetes in children). Consumption in general of soda has fallen by 26%, and of sports drinks by 36%.

The point is that this works, and helps meet goals that public health experts are working towards. It promotes a healthy society, and it promotes democracy by reducing the unjust influence that large, corporate soft drink makers have on lower-income communities.

On Measure HH, I will VOTE YES.

Measure G1: Equitability for Education

Measure G1 in Oakland is a tax of $120/parcel, with exceptions for low-income, single-family home owners who live in their home. The money goes to the Oakland Unified School District, and will be used to raise teacher salaries, and expand arts programs, as well as some other things. I like that this tax maintains an exception for low-income, single-family homeowners, because this is a sector of people in Oakland that are at extremely high risk of displacement by rising costs. It is also historically a large sector of people in Oakland, which has a history of being home to many lower-income residents. At the same time, the measure aims to use money to support arts programs, which have been shown by research to create a large positive impact on students in general, and can notably help students who deal with violence, trauma, or the hindrances of living in low-income households.

I am no expert on the circumstances of education in Oakland. But I do know that OUSD needs a lot of help. I have some concerns about the increasing migration of wealthier classes of people into Oakland, and how that might combine with a school district full of charter schools. As better-performing students get accepted into charter schools, underperforming students, who often have class circumstances (and therefore, race) in common get segregated into certain public schools that increasingly lack the resources needed to deal with their population of vulnerable students. It is a good idea for the district to get more money from a tax that protects the families whose circumstances this measure will hopefully address. It is a good idea to increase teacher salaries and give hard-working teachers the resources they need to be able to fully commit to education in Oakland.

Also, no one submitted any argument against this. No one hates this idea.

On Measure G1, I will VOTE YES.

Measure JJ: If You Rent, This Is For You

Measure JJ does a few very important things that might make the difference to help you keep living in Oakland. Everyone knows the rental market is insane, and landlords all over the city are pouncing when they can on pushing current residents out, because they can easily ask for $1,000 or more per month for many units in Oakland that are being rented for a lot less, right now. Of course, if landlords got their way, it would be a disaster. Not only because many people believe it would be unjust, but the results of such sweeping displacement of people would create tremendous economic inefficiencies that affect the displaced, and by extension, the whole local economy.

The main thing Measure JJ does is protect tenants from illegal rent increases. Many renters aren’t sure of their rights and might tolerate illegal rent increases. Others may allow these abuses by landlords in order to avoid trouble by appeasing their landlords, which, despite their victimization complex, have a disproportionate amount of power in the landlord/tenant relationship. Measure JJ requires landlords to petition the city before they can ask tenants for any rent increases above the inflation index. It also requires the city to send information to tenants on their rights annually, and requires landlords to provide info to tenants on their rights, and instructions to appeal, whenever landlords ask for rent increases. It also keeps the city council more involved in the activities of the Rent Adjustment Board, and will make it easier for tenant advocates to get information relevant to their cause from the city.

Basically, are you a renter? Then you will vote yes. I will VOTE YES on Measure JJ.

Measure II: Measure What?

This is a little heard of, mostly administrative change that is a bit too boring to get the attention of most people, but it actually can make a very important impact on the life of Oakland. This measure authorizes the city to lease property for a maximum of 99 years. Currently, the city can lease property for a maximum of 66. Increasing the maximum term does two things. It helps the city hold onto property for the public benefit, and it makes it more feasible for developers to build affordable housing with the longer lease term.

I will VOTE YES on Measure II.

Measure KK: Infrastructure and Affordable Housing

This measure is meant to raise funds for the city to produce some massive infrastructure improvements. It’s a bond, and will be paid back by property owners in Oakland. It is estimated to add something like $100 or so in taxes per property, for most people. It varies on the assessed value ($250,000 assessed value would make it around $65, for example). Is that too much? Can homeowners in Oakland handle it? Is this bond funding improvements that benefit Oakland residents in areas with shit infrastructure, or is it going to end up funding cosmetic improvements in trendier areas?

All questions I have that are shared by others. According to the East Bay Express, this measure mandates the creation of a citizen oversight committee to ensure that funds are spent fairly, citywide. That’s an interesting thing that doesn’t sound common, and maybe we should move this forward to see how it will work? I can’t be sure that this is awesome, but Oakland is really, really needing some help on fixing roads and sidewalks, which is what most of this is for. Some of it will also help reserve land for affordable housing construction. I say go for it.

I’ll vote yes.

Measure LL: Who Polices the Police?

We do. We police the police. Measure LL establishes citizen oversight of the OPD. A citizen commission would be established to keep watch over the department. Don’t worry, it won’t fill up with cops: none of the people on this commission can be former or current law enforcement. This is a place for the community impacted by policing to exercise power. There are critiques. It isn’t perfect. But it is an important step, and lots of public professionals and activists agree on that much, at least.

Hell yes I’m voting for this. I’m voting yes.

Alameda County: Measure A1

Alameda County has just one measure on the ballot: Measure A1. It’s a $580 million dollar bond to support programs that assist low and moderate income people with home ownership, and supports that production of affordable rental housing. You know what’s going on here, and you know we need this. Sounds like we have a lot of bonds to vote on, yes. But that’s what happens when you abandon public infrastructure spending and exacerbate social inequality at the same time. It’s gotta get fixed. Not paying then means paying more later. If we’re okay with some people getting rich at the expense of everyone else, then we are going to have to pay for the money we gave away to the rich. Shruggety-shrug-shrug.

Vote yes on this. I’m voting yes on Measure A1.

BART District: Measure RR

Oh man, oh man. BART is seriously falling apart. Think about it. Really think deep, and imagine what it means that hundreds of train cars are running at the same time, depending on electrical components and structural pieces that are over 50 years old in a region where seismic activity is common. Think about 400,000 riders, per day, depending on a system that can’t get replacement parts because they don’t make them anymore, and can’t expand service because the software control systems for the trains can’t handle it. A system that can’t run more trains because the braking and acceleration distances of the current trains are too long to run more trains closer to each other, safely. Watch some Youtube videos. BART is held together by band-aids. And it’s doing, who knows, maybe twice the work that it was built for, right now.

What’s that? You commute by car and rarely use BART? Okay, sure. What do you think happens to almost half of a million people if they can’t take BART? How do you suppose they will get from point A to point B? Without getting into the economics of transportation or reasonable facts about how cities don’t work without transit, because roads usually don’t have the capacity to move that many people, I hope that you find these questions as scary as I do.

We’ve gotta fund BART. I’m VOTING YES on Measure RR.

California Propositions

Oh my God, there are so many of them. It’s a perfect-storm of democracy being a nuisance. Your vote for president may be statistically, almost meaningless in terms of its democratic value, since your vote doesn’t really represent your choice… but for these propositions, go nuts. You have a little more power here. Exercise it. I’ll write less about these because I want to finish this post before lunch next Monday.

Prop 51: Sounds Good, Right?

Education bonds. Governor Brown says no... I am inclined to trust his pragmatic judgment despite the long list of supporters. One huge concern is that it's high stakes to approve this much state spending considering how much debt the state is paying off for education bonds already... given that the impact may not be as great as some might expect: it is expected that the largest or wealthiest school districts with most resources will have the largest ability to take advantage of this cash, and it might not benefit low-income communities as much as we would hope. I might agree that bang for buck isn't super great on this. Also there are local measures for education spending. Not just brown, but the Green Party as well opposes this measure, and East Bay Express. Allegations exist that this is a measure that promotes construction of new sites over rehabilitation in a way that favors developers and might be irresponsible.

I will vote NO on Prop 51.

Prop 52: MediCal Funding

Prevents MediCal funds from being diverted to other programs, and extends a current program that secures MediCal funding. Whatever it is that will happen with health care, it needs to be paid for, so I’m voting yes.

Prop 53: It’s a Trap

When I read this, I felt suspicious. This measure requires voter approval of large, infrastructure-related revenue bonds, which currently don’t require voter approval. Voter approval is NOT always a good thing. Revenue bonds are the kinds of bonds that don’t require additional taxation, like some of the Oakland and Alameda bonds that I’ve written about above. An example would be a bond intended to fund a rail station, where money from fares (revenue) are used to pay back the bonds. With how controversial the high speed rail project has been (because Americans hate trains) and how committed certain people are to opposing this project (even at this stage, which makes it costlier), it’s easy to suspect that Prop 53 is the kind of thing supported by the opponents of public projects and infrastructure development (because developing society actually has opponents, for some reason) so that they can use it to shut down projects like high-speed rail. Maybe they can even still use this against the high-speed rail project somehow. I don’t know. On this one, I have about 20% research and 80% speculation. But I don’t like it. It might sound good on the surface, but functionally this might not be a great thing.

I’m voting NO on Prop 53

Prop 54: Government Transparency?

Oh man, I dunno. I’m going to vote yes. This could have some unintended consequences that might work against your interests because of the way politics tend to work to get shit done. But it’s hard to argue that transparency is not a better way to do things, so I will vote with my principles and hope the growing pains this might cause are negligible.

I’m voting YES on Prop 54

Prop 55: Progressive Tax

The EBX's text on this says it well:

In 2012, when Californians were trying to climb out of the Great Recession, voters approved Prop. 30, a modification to the state’s income tax that slightly increased rates on people earning more than a quarter-million dollars a year. It was a crucial move that staved off billions in cuts to schools, prevented massive tuition hikes at our public universities, and stopped budget tightening that would have devastated our safety net health-care programs. It was a smart and just decision to ask the richest Californians to pay a little more. But Prop. 30 is set to expire in 2018. Prop. 55 would extend the “millionaire’s tax” for twelve more years.

Vote yes. I’m voting YES on Prop 55

Prop 56: Fuacate, and It’s Done

Boom. $2/pack tax on cigarettes to significantly boost MediCal Funding. Makes sense. I’m voting YES.

Prop 57: Keep Kids Out of Prison

Right now, prosecutors get to decide if they want to try juvenile defendants as adults. This rolls that back and gives judges that decision. This also is aimed at reducing the prison population, which isn't prison abolition, but it's a step on the way. You know who's opposed to it? Pretty much just prosecutors and cops. Vote Yes.

I’m voting YES on Prop 57.

Prop 58: Bilingual Learning for Everyone

Repeals some bad laws that stopped schools from having dual-language programs. Would create more bilingual students! Facilitates the learning of English giving local districts more flexibility, and benefits English speaking students by giving them the option to be a part of a dual language program, too.

I’m voting YES on Prop 58

Prop 59: Authorize Lawmakers to Pass Resolution Against Citizen’s United Ruling

Send a message. Vote YES.

Prop 60: Porn Regulation

Man, I dunno. It’s hard to say what the best way to go about this is, so I am trusting the East Bay Express with their opinion on it, and voting no, based on this proposition being poorly designed and claiming to affect actors in the industry in ways that it can’t. There is a lot of convincing evidence that this isn’t really a fact-based proposition.

I will vote NO on Prop 60.

Prop 62: Repeal the Death Penalty

I would call myself a prison abolitionist. This doesn’t go that far, obviously, but it prevents the state from having the right to execute people. It is hard enough to justify the killing of a person by an individual; it is unjustifiable for the state to kill. A bureaucratic process designed to execute people, who are sentenced to death by a frighteningly imperfect justice system, is an extremely unethical thing. There is no role for a death penalty in a healthy society. I don’t believe there is any role for prisons, either, and I wish that repealing the death penalty didn’t mean that the alternative was life imprisonment without parole. There has to be a less resource-intensive, more constructive way to deal with serious criminal offenders than this. I have a friend who voted against repealing the death penalty because he found the thought of life imprisonment to be a great deal more abusive than death. It’s possible that some on death row might agree with him. But if the goal is to dismantle the prison system and find a more constructive way to address serious crime, we can’t get there without repealing the death penalty and revoking the state’s authority to directly exterminate the lives of its constituents. We should reject the notion that such a determination can be made through state apparatus, justly.

Repeal the death penalty. Vote YES on Prop 62.

Prop 63: Regulating Gun Ammunition

Restricts and regulates sale of ammunition. Vote Yes. It's not perfect, but can hopefully decrease gun fatalities and injuries. There is a part of this that makes stealing a gun worth less than $950 a felony instead of misdemeanor, which... I mean, I don't know why punish that particular, specific thing so harshly in a policy designed to address a broader issue… especially while California works to decrease the number of non-violent offenders in prisons… and also knowing that felony convictions lock people out of the economy. But overall maybe still yes. Or no. I don’t know. Up to you.

I dunno.

Prop 64: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

Historic Moment. Tough Choice. This has got some issues. But it may be that the net benefit outweighs the harm. One thing I don’t like is that it allows and seems to encourage advertising, which… I mean, fuck advertising. I don’t like advertising of alcohol, tobacco, or prescription drugs, so why would I like the advertising of marijuana, in any case? Decisions on drugs and mind-altering substances should be made by people and their medical advisors, and people deserve to be free of the influence of advertising. This might be unstoppable to begin with, because I know brand advertising of marijuana products has been growing in the medical industry, as well, so it may not make a large impact that this proposition encourages it.

But there are other problems. I have read it bans the growing of plants outdoors. Period. Why? Even in your own yard? Californians registered as cannabis patients can grow in their yards, now. Why roll that back? Or will that stay in place for them and only apply to recreational users? What will happen to the prices of marijuana? How will this affect the medical marijuana system? Are we seeing the beginnings of a massive cannabis industry, on par with tobacco? Or is this the beginning of legitimizing the “greener” use of hemp as an industrial alternative to a variety of products including plastics, animal products, and fiberglass? Will the general population just chill out for a fucking minute if this is passed?

I haven’t researched Prop 64 all too much, so it’s hard for me to say in detail. I did read enough to convince me that the greater benefit of this bill outweighs my concerns, and I hope groups that share my concerns will work to improve cannabis culture in California so that it is guaranteed to always benefit people more than corporations.

I will vote Yes on Prop 64.

Prop 65: Plastic Bags, Wildlife Fund?

This is bullshit meant to confuse you about the two plastic bag propositions. Do you want to put the bag money in a wildlife fund? It doesn’t matter. This was put on the ballot to divide the attention of groups who would be focused on supporting Prop 67 to ban plastic bags. Grocers are a large part of the coalition to support the plastic bag ban, so the plastic bag lobby (yes, there is that. It is a thing.) put this here, threatening the revenue they get from the ten cent bag fees, to divert their attention. It’s also there to confuse you into, perhaps, voting no on both of these. I think it’s easier for me to just leave this blank.

Prop 66: The Opposite of Repealing the Death Penalty

Some of the argument against capital punishment is that it is too expensive. Well, for the people who feel it is too expensive, but also find themselves having very low regard for human life and a high degree of trust in bureaucracies and institutions, Prop 66 is here! It basically kills people faster and cheaper. What could go wrong? I am voting no on this vile abomination.

Prop 67: The Real Plastic Bag Ban, But For Real This Time

For fuck’s sake, our legislature voted on this already. It’s only here because the plastic bag lobby (again, hello) forced a referendum to try and veto it. Don’t let them get away with this bullshit undermining of our Californian democracy. Show them that it happens to work better here than in the rest of the states. The plastic bags aren’t helping anyone out, just get rid of the damn things already. Even the people giving them away don’t want them anymore.

I WILL VOTE YES ON THIS. “YES” is a vote to UPHOLD the BAN on plastic bags.

Prop … oh, wait. That’s it.

HOLY CRAP. That was a lot, without even going through the persons running for office. I bet you’re already good on that. Most people spend more time on candidates, but I tend to like the policy stuff. That’s how I’m voting on all of this. I hope that was of help to someone. Or, I hope it gave you a window into my brain, if you ever wanted one.

Remember to look at other sources if you haven’t already! Trust our local East Bay Express, and trust the League of Women Voters. Women are half of the population, so the League of Women Voters tends to be non-partisan.